Sierra Development Company v. Chartwell Advisory Group Ltd.

Filing 225

ORDERED that this case is hereby STAYED as to Counterclaim Defendants Caesar's Entertainment Operating Company, Inc., 3535 LV Corporation, Caesar's Entertainment Golf, Inc., Desert Palace, Inc., FHR Corporation, Harveys Tahoe Management Company, Inc., Parball Corporation, Rio Development Company, Inc., and Harrah's Imperial Palace Corporation pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(a). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Counterclaim Defendant Caesars Entertainment Corporation's motion to be dismissed as a party, made within its # 108 Motion to Dismiss, is DENIED. Signed by Judge Richard F. Boulware, II on 6/19/2015. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRM)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6

***

7
8

SIERRA DEVELOPMENT CO., d/b/a
CLUB CAL NEVA,
Plaintiff,

9
10
11

ORDER

v.
CHARTWELL ADVISORY GROUP, LTD.,
Defendant.

12
13

Case No. 3:13-cv-00602-RFB-VPC

CHARTWELL ADVISORY GROUP, LTD.,

14

Counterclaim Plaintiff,

15

v.

16

SIERRA DEVELOPMENT CO., et al.,

17

Counterclaim Defendants.

18
19

On May 26, 2015, the Court held a hearing in this case in which it denied the

20

Counterclaim Defendants’ pending Motions to Dismiss and denied their pending Motions to

21

Sever without prejudice. At the hearing, the Court noted that an automatic stay is applicable to

22

certain of the Caesars-related Counterclaim Defendants pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362, and

23

indicated that it would issue a written order clarifying the parties to which the automatic stay

24

applies. The Court also informed the parties that it would issue a written ruling clarifying

25

whether Counterclaim Defendant Caesars Entertainment Corporation (CEC) should be dismissed

26

from this case as requested in the Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 108) filed by CEC and other

27

Caesars parties. This Order follows that hearing and contains the Court’s ruling on these issues.

28

///

1

A. Automatic Stay

2

On January 22, 2015, Counterclaim Defendants Caesar’s Entertainment Operating

3

Company, Inc., 3535 LV Corporation, Caesar’s Entertainment Golf, Inc., Desert Palace, Inc.,

4

FHR Corporation, Harveys Tahoe Management Company, Inc., Parball Corporation, and Rio

5

Development Company, Inc. filed a Notice of Suggestion of Bankruptcy on the record. ECF No.

6

217. For the reasons stated on the record at the hearing on May 26, 2015, this Court reiterates

7

that this filing operates as a stay of the continuation of this action against those parties pursuant

8

to 11 U.S.C. § 362(a).

9

Moreover, counsel for Caesars 1 informed the Court at the May 26 hearing that

10

Counterclaim Defendant Harrah’s Imperial Palace Corporation is now known as 3535 LV

11

Corporation and that these two entities are one and the same. Therefore, the automatic stay shall

12

also apply to Harrah’s Imperial Palace Corporation to the extent Chartwell continues to assert

13

any claims against it.

14

B. Dismissal of Caesars Entertainment Corporation

15

In its Motion to Dismiss, Caesars asserted that CEC should be dismissed from this case

16

because it is a parent corporation that was not a party or successor-in-interest to any of the

17

contracts its subsidiaries signed with Chartwell. Caesars also requests that the Court take judicial

18

notice of various SEC filings, press releases, and newspaper articles it claims demonstrate the

19

corporate structure of the Caesars parties and establish that Caesars Entertainment Corporation is

20

not a party to any of Chartwell’s contracts with the Caesars parties. ECF Nos. 110, 111.

21

Courts may take judicial notice of adjudicative facts that cannot be reasonably disputed

22

because they “can be accurately and readily determined from sources whose accuracy cannot

23

reasonably be questioned.” Fed. R. Evid. 201(b)(2). Further, courts are required to take judicial

24
1

25
26
27
28

The term “Caesars” refers collectively to the following entities as named in Chartwell’s
Answer and Counterclaim (ECF No. 18): Caesar’s Entertainment Corp.; Caesar’s Entertainment
Operating Co., Inc.; Harrah’s Las Vegas LLC; Harrah’s Laughlin LLC; Harvey’s Tahoe
Management Co., Inc.; Rio Development Co., Inc.; Rio Properties, LLC; 3535 LV Corp.;
Caesar’s Entertainment Golf, Inc.; Desert Palace, Inc.; FHR Corp.; Harrah’s Imperial Palace
Corp.; and Parball Corp. Counsel for the Caesars Parties informed the Court that Counterclaim
Defendant Colony Resorts LVH Acquisitions, LLC (“Colony”) is not a Caesars-related entity,
despite it being so named in the Counterclaim. Chartwell did not dispute this representation.
Therefore, Colony is excluded from any discussion of the Caesars parties.
-2-

1

notice of adjudicative facts if a party so requests and supplies the court with the necessary

2

information. Fed. R. Evid. 201(c).

3

The Court takes judicial notice of the existence of the documents provided by Caesars,

4

but not their contents. The articles and press releases submitted by Caesars serve to demonstrate

5

what was in the public domain at the time and are admissible for that purpose, but are not

6

admissible to demonstrate the truth of their contents. Von Saher v. Norton Simon Museum of

7

Art, 592 F.3d 954, 960 (9th Cir. 2009) (“Courts may take judicial notice of publications

8

introduced to indicate what was in the public realm at the time, not whether the contents of those

9

articles were in fact true.”). As for the SEC filings, while they are properly subject to judicial

10

notice, Dreiling v. Am. Express Co., 458 F.3d 942, 946 n.2 (9th Cir. 2006), Chartwell has

11

opposed the taking of judicial notice insofar as it pertains to the truth of the contents of the

12

filings. The Court finds that the contents of Caesars’ SEC filings are subject to reasonable

13

dispute and it shall therefore only take judicial notice of the existence of these filings, not the

14

truth of their contents. See Lee v. City of Los Angeles, 250 F.3d 668, 689 (9th Cir. 2001) (“A

15

court may take judicial notice of matters of public record without converting a motion to dismiss

16

into a motion for summary judgment. But a court may not take judicial notice of a fact that is

17

subject to reasonable dispute.”); id. at 690 (holding that by accepting as true the validity of a

18

waiver contained in an external court document, “the district court failed to draw all reasonable

19

inferences from plaintiffs’ allegations” claiming otherwise); cf. Northstar Fin. Advisors Inc. v.

20

Schwab Investments, 779 F.3d 1036, 1043 (9th Cir. 2015) (taking judicial notice of SEC filings,

21

but noting that the documents were referenced in the complaint, the information was made

22

publicly available by the SEC, and neither party disputed “the authenticity of the [documents] or

23

the accuracy of the information displayed therein.”) (alteration in original).

24

At the May 26 hearing, the Court found that Chartwell has stated claims for breach of

25

contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and unjust enrichment

26

against CEC. The reasons for this finding were stated on the record at the hearing. The existence

27

of the documents contained in Caesars’ Request for Judicial Notice do not establish that CEC

28

must be dismissed from Chartwell’s contract-based claims. Without conducting a detailed factual

-3-

1

inquiry and considering evidence as to the truth of the documents filed in CEC’s Request for

2

Judicial Notice, the Court cannot make the heavily fact-bound determination of which entities

3

succeeded to the Chartwell-Park Place contract and whether CEC now bears any liability on any

4

of the contracts between Chartwell and the Caesars parties. The Court declines to do so at the

5

motion to dismiss stage.
ORDER

6
7

For the reasons stated above,

8

IT IS ORDERED that this case is hereby STAYED as to Counterclaim Defendants

9

Caesar’s Entertainment Operating Company, Inc., 3535 LV Corporation, Caesar’s Entertainment

10

Golf, Inc., Desert Palace, Inc., FHR Corporation, Harveys Tahoe Management Company, Inc.,

11

Parball Corporation, Rio Development Company, Inc., and Harrah’s Imperial Palace Corporation

12

pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(a).

13

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Counterclaim Defendant Caesars Entertainment

14

Corporation’s motion to be dismissed as a party, made within its Motion to Dismiss (ECF No.

15

108), is DENIED.

16
17

DATED: June 19, 2015.
______________________________
RICHARD F. BOULWARE II
United States District Judge

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-4-